The authors gratefully acknowledge the friendship, support, and cooperation of the residents of Superior. We would like to express special gratitude to the following:
Mayor Rick Disney, Rodney Rogers, Sandra Foote, Trenton Morris, Craig Hale, Levi Gunn, and Darrell Brandt.
Chairperson Kim Young, Vice Chairperson Carl Suchsland, Theresa Erickson, Emily Kirchhoff, Logan Christiancy, Angela Henderson, Jim Mitchell, and Calvin Hayes.
City Administrator Andrew Brittenham, City Attorney John Hodge, and City Clerk Brenda Corman.
Per Nebraska Revised Statutes (NRS) 19-901(1), municipal governments in Nebraska are granted the authority to regulate land use within their jurisdiction:
For the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community, the city council of a city of the first class or city of the second class or the village board of trustees of a village may adopt zoning regulations which regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lots that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes.
The Superior Plan is organized into chapters based upon the guidance and requirements listed within NRS 19-903:
Per NRS 17-1001 (1), the geographical area covered by the City of Superior Comprehensive Plan includes all land within a one-mile area encompassing the city, “the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction of a city shall consist of the unincorporated area one mile beyond and adjacent to its corporate boundaries.”
Map 1.1: Superior Municipal Boundary and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction displays Superior’s corporate boundary and zoning jurisdiction, which includes all lands within the City of Superior and its One-Mile Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Superior’s land use policies govern all lands within the city as well as the ETJ.1
municipal_boundary <- read_sf(dsn = "shapefiles/municipal_boundary/municipal_boundary.shp")
municipal_etj <- read_sf(dsn = "shapefiles/municipal_etj/municipal_etj.shp")
mapview::mapview(municipal_boundary, layer.name = "Superior Municipal Boundary",
alpha.regions = 0.25, lwd = 2)+
mapview::mapview(municipal_etj, layer.name = "Superior Extraterritorial Jurisdiction",
alpha.regions = 0)
The existing land use (ELU) map provides a visual representation of how land in Superior is being used. It is a snapshot of the current state of the city’s existing land use patterns and helps with the decision-making processes related to land development, zoning regulation, and infrastructure funding.
Map 2.2: Superior Existing Land Use categorizes different areas – typically parcels of land – based on their primary uses today. This map serves as a baseline for inventorying characteristics of Superior that the community hopes to maintain, as well as what the community hopes to change in the next decade. It assists with identifying areas of change or potential growth, as well as with making informed decisions about future development and zoning regulations.2
Table 2.1 summarizes the distribution of land in Superior by land use category. There are six categories: agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential, exempt, and state centrally assessed. Within city limits, commercial and residential uses make up three quarters of all land area, while exempt makes up another 15 percent. Agricultural land just under seven percent, while industrial and state centrally assessed land make up the remainder.
Table 2.1: Existing Land Use - Within Superior City Limits
| Land Use | Parcels | Area (Square Acres) | Percent of Total Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agricultural | 38 | 74.44 | 6.74% |
| Commercial | 197 | 364.42 | 33.02% |
| Industrial | 3 | 25.01 | 2.27% |
| Residential | 1099 | 468.62 | 42.47% |
| Exempt | 122 | 168.91 | 15.31% |
| State Centrally Assessed | 4 | 3.77 | 0.19% |
Table 2.2 shows the land use outside of city limits in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. Here, the vast majority of land use is agricultural. While residents and landowners living here do not elect city officials or pay property tax to the city, their lands are nonetheless important to the Superior’s future growth for several reasons:
Table 2.2: Existing Land Use - Within Superior Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
| Land Use | Parcels | Area (Square Acres) | Percent of Total Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agricultural | 190 | 6137.97 | 77.56% |
| Commercial | 198 | 455.42 | 5.75% |
| Industrial | 7 | 108.81 | 1.37% |
| Residential | 1103 | 474.78 | 6.00% |
| Exempt | 176 | 730.45 | 9.22% |
| State Centrally Assessed | 4 | 6.79 | 0.09% |
In this chapter, we document the condition, status, and needs for housing in Superior. Drawing on a variety of data from the Nuckolls County Property Assessor, various government agencies, and original surveys of Superior residents, we show that Superior has a long-term trend of population decline and housing structures in need of improvement.
The status and condition of structures are categorized by the Nuckolls County property assessor. Table 3.1 shows how the assessor has rated these parcels in Superior:
Table 3.1: Superior Residential Land Use Conditions
| Condition | Parcels | Percent of Total Parcels | Percent of Total Area (Square Acres) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Worn-Out | 53 | 5.83% | 54.33% |
| Worn-Out – Badly Worn | 2 | 0.22% | 0.33% |
| Badly Worn | 123 | 13.53% | 12.00% |
| Badly Worn – Average | 109 | 11.99% | 9.08% |
| Average | 473 | 52.04% | 54.32% |
| Average – Good | 69 | 7.59% | 8.59% |
| Good | 78 | 8.58% | 9.71% |
| Good – Very Good | 0 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Very Good | 2 | 0.22% | 0.33% |
Superior residents have expressed frustration with the quality of residential neighborhoods. In a 2025 survey, they expressed mixed satisfaction with vacated and dilapidated houses in their neighborhood, but strong negative sentiment with occupied nuisance properties and neighborhood overall appearances. Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of responses to these questions.
One priority for policymakers is to encourage the redevelopment or demolition of such properties to improve community appearance. In the same survey, 75 percent of respondents indicated that “beautification should be a priority for the City of Superior.” 86 percent of respondents supported “ongoing demolition of uninhabitable homes”, and 80 percent supported “enforcing nuisance and other property maintenance codes for all properties.” Finally, 54 percent supported “establishing additional standards to improve the exterior appearance of buildings and properties along the city’s busiest streets,” perhaps recognizing that the beautification of Superior affects not only residents but also businesses and visitors.
Superior residents also described which features of neglected properties they consider problematic. Of six categories – abandoned vehicles, broken windows, yard debris, overgrown landscaping, peeling paint, and vacant homes – all six had at least a third described as “definitely a problem”, while just about half of respondents characterized each as “sometimes a problem.” Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of responses to these questions.
The ages of structures are categorized by the Nuckolls County property assessor. Table 3.2 shows the age distribution of structures in Superior.
Table 3.2
| Era Built | Parcels | Percent of Total Parcels | Percent of Total Area (Square Acres) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before 1900 | 32 | 3.50% | 2.47% |
| 1900-1920 | 334 | 36.54% | 30.84% |
| 1920-1940 | 200 | 21.88% | 22.34% |
| 1940-1960 | 141 | 15.42% | 10.52% |
| 1960-1980 | 139 | 15.21% | 19.58% |
| 1980-2000 | 40 | 4.38% | 5.86% |
| 20000 or later | 28 | 3.01% | 8.42% |
Figure 3.3 shows how Superior’s population has changed over the last century. The city population peaked in the 1940s before beginning to steadily decline to about 1,800 residents today. The decline was most pronounced in the 1990s.
Figure 3.4 presents several possible population
scenarios for Superior. They range from one-percent annual growth over
the next 25 years to one-percent annual decline. Although many factors –
some outside of the control of Superior residents – influence which
scenarios will become reality, municipal officials have expressed that a
target scenario of 0.25% annual growth is a policy goal.
The Census defines a family as any two or more people (not necessarily including a householder) residing together and related by birth, marriage, or adoption. A household consists of one or more persons residing together who may or may not be related by birth, marriage, or adoption. Multiple families can reside in the same household.
Figure 3.5 is based on estimates from the 2023 U.S. Census American Community Survey and shows how average family and household sizes have changed in Superior over the past decade. The average family size has increased over the past decade, peaking for a four-year stretch from 2018 to 2021, before declining the last two years. Meanwhile, the average household size is up about 14 percent from 2013.
Some projections indicate future growth for Superior, while others – including the historical one – suggest continued decline. However, if Superior’s population grows, the city will need additional housing units. This will require the new development of adjacent lands and possible redevelopment of lands already in the city. Table 3.3 uses the 2023 ACS estimate of 2.16 persons per household to document projected needs.
Table 3.3: Population Projection Scenarios and Housing Needs| 0.25% Annual Growth Rate | 1% Annual Growth Rate | |
|---|---|---|
| 2040 Population Projection | 1918 | 2209 |
| 2050 Population Projection | 1966 | 2430 |
| Total Population Increase by 2050 | 141 | 605 |
| New Housing Units Needed by 2050 | 66 | 281 |
Figure 3.6 shows the distribution of Superior residents by age and gender. One striking observation is the relative lack of young adults: in a city of around 1,900 people, there are only 49 men and 80 women age 20 and 29.3 One priority for policymakers is to pursue housing and business environments that encourage more young people to come to Superior, and to encourage Superior’s residents under the age of 19 to consider staying as they age into adulthood.
Overall, both incomes and costs of living have increased in Superior over the last decade. Figure 3.7 shows how, adjusting for inflation, each of median home values and median household incomes have increased since 2013. Fortunately for households, the growth rate of household incomes has outpaced the growth rate of home values.
It is also worth noting that rental prices have fallen from their peak in 2014. While the lowest price point in 2020 may be attributable to COVID-19-related factors, rental prices were trending downward before 2020 but have begun to rise again since.4
Over the last decade, the vacancy rate of housing units in Superior has hovered around 15 percent (Figure 3.8). Most recently, this was 16.68%, or about 165 housing units. At the 2023 average household size of 2.16 persons per household (Figure 3.5), those vacant units could be expected to house around 330 additional people.5 Simply filling those units, after necessary renovation or redevelopment, might help Superior achieve population growth between 0.25% and 1% annually by 2050. Renovation or redevelopment alone will not reverse the population decline, but the infrastructure is at least in place to avoid historical and population decline scenarios with careful implementation.
About 43% of the land usage in Superior is residential, or set aside as space where people live. However, many of the structures on that land are aging or in average (or worse) condition. If the city is to grow, the city needs to work to maintain the status of existing residential structures and to develop new ones. If nothing changes or maintenance is ignored, the distribution of homes in Superior will only get older and decrease in quality.
This setting occurs amidst more than a half-century trend of population decline. Like many rural communities, Superior is getting smaller and getting older. If Superior is to attract new residents to sustain its population, a multifaceted approach of developing new homes and redeveloping or renovating existing ones is essential.
Residents clearly show demand for improvement and renovation of existing housing stock. While the City has a toolkit of nuisance abatement procedures, residents and public stakeholders need to understand that the implementation of those procedures is long, hard, and necessary.
Superior’s southern boundary is within one mile of the Nebraska-Kansas border. Consequently, the ETJ does not spill over into Kansas and the extent of the ETJ is less than one mile there.↩︎
These uses are designated by the Nuckolls County Property Assessor. While the standards for designation may be debatable, we rely on these because they are largely the most up-to-date.↩︎
These numbers are estimates and may be statistically noisy. While it is unlikely as of this writing that there are exactly 49 men and 80 women in this age cohort, it is nonetheless likely true that the proportion in this age cohort is small relative to others.↩︎
Evaluating the impact of the pandemic on housing costs, in general, is difficult. Overall, rent prices cratered in the summer of 2020, but measuring the impact in smaller towns like Superior is a challenge for researchers. See Kuk, Shachter, Faber, and Besbris. “The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Rental Market: Evidence From Craigslist.” American Behavioral Scientist, 2021.↩︎
This estimation is noisy and relies on assumptions that all vacant units are suitable for current living, which is unlikely.↩︎